submit_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the auto-review process, deployment timeline ('goes live in minutes'), and API key requirement ('Requires AILIST_API_KEY env var'). No contradictions noted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact at three sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding key behavioral details. Every sentence is necessary, though the instruction to 'read their repo' could be slightly more precise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage context, auth requirements, and process timeline. Some minor items like error handling or rate limits are omitted, but the core is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, but does not need to since the schema is already comprehensive and covers all 12 parameters with clear descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool submits a project to AiList, using the specific verb 'submit' and resource 'project'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_projects or get_trending by focusing on creation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use it ('when a user says list my project on AiList') and mentions reading their repo before calling. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.